NCAA Tournament Video Requests - Sunday March 19
 

Please make all requests for this day here.

Peace

Kansas vs mich st 17:54. Shooting foul. 2nd half

Michigan-Louisville, second half, 5:30 left. Louisville player blows a dunk but remains hanging on the rim in order to help corral the rebound.

Officials ruled BI, but nothing more. In HS, you could argue this was 10-4-4a (placing a hand on the ring to gain an advantage). Is the rule different in NCAAM, or were the officials likely going with the least disruptive call in a tight game?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/S5d470zFEC4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

UNC Arkansas. 48 seconds left in 2nd. No call on block/charge

Arkansas/NC 2:15 of the second half. Is this not a travel you would call in a jr. high game? I thought I was seeing it called tighter this year, but......

TNT
North Carolina v Arkansas
About 45 seconds left
Block/charge/travel. #2v#2

25.2 remaining
Foul or vertical defenders

Charge followed by a travel.

PC foul 1:38 left URI/Oregon

And to clarify, I would like to see the NC State/Texas women's call with 8.4 left.

NCAAW: Arizona State vs. SC

4th quarter 7:59. T on ASU coach.

That one was a great call.

Duke Vs South Carolina. 1:38 left. Foul on Kennard? Not understanding why Kennard was hit with a foul when he did not reach the contact seemed to be all the offensive player.

Duke/SC
 

Second half

1:56 block called

1:40-something foul called by C opposite side of court

1:01 designated spot violation and official gives travel mechanic

:eek: LOL

Did he? I was watching and thought I just saw him correctly whistle the violation and point to the end line. I know the announcers talked about "a travel" being called, but I guess I missed the travel signal being used.

In HS, this is not basket interference. This is a technical foul. Is the rule different in NCAAM?

1. If this is the block in the middle of the FT lane against SC, then it was a wonderful call. The defender moved in late after the offensive player had become airborne.
Edit: Nope, just saw the video. That is the one on the endline. PC was the proper call imo. The play in thinking of occurred about a minute prior and was on a drive down the middle of the lane.

2. Tough to come that far in front of a partner for something that is debatable.

3. Surprisingly, Mike Reed is an extreme rules guy.

If you notice the C official he is making a signal for a technical foul.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qNKtP024_wc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b1hpobjjHzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FSkQb6Z6aiA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

He did it real briefly, and honestly looked like he didn't want to :o

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zva9hIefMxw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J6s0eVDEtBU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n2Hh3mX9_TY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Are you sure about that?

Yeah I think this play probably surprised him and he gave an abnormal signal cuz he didn't know how else to communicate it.

Also, what is up with Duke and throw-in violations?? :D

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1ATEieoYsHE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

No. The defender leaned into the shooter's path after the shooter was airborne.

First one is a PC, or a travel, but definitely not nothing. Defender looks to establish LGP and is not coming forward. Then A1 travels.

Second play looks like a foul on both defenders, take your pick. Neither one maintains verticality. There's nothing wrong with a double whistle on that play in the middle of the lane, especially with two defenders converging on one shooter is there?

third play, is a travel in slow mo, but I certainly didn't raise an eyebrow to it live.

- Take your pick? Why not follow the rules and call a multiple foul? oh yea, see tagline.:cool:

1) I like hand check on initial dribble. OK, they don't call that so, I got a block on collision. (looks as if I am in minority on that)

2) Foul on double teaming defender. Arms are angled down creating initial contact.

3) Technical travel. L cannot see ball control(up top) and feet(below) in this case. T reffing passer/defender and screened.

Can someone confirm / deny that this was correctly ruled BI per NCAAM rules?

We seem to have agreement that in HS this is a Technical, not BI. And as Johnny Ringo points out, the C does appear to be signaling a T.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

NFHS Player Technical Foul: A player shall not: Illegally contact the backboard/ring by: Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage.

It's the "Ralph Sampson Rule".

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.n...=0&w=300&h=300

Same rule in both.

Guess I am not understanding why you say Technical, "not BI". I agree on the technical part but are you suggesting that if he made the basket it would not be BI and that the score would count but then a Technical would be called? If a player is grabbing the rim and messing with the ball, I consider that BI and would not count any basket scored in such a way. I am thinking it is both BI and a T. Now, perhaps you meant it was not BI simply because the ball was not in the cylinder and it was not scored. I agree with that but if that ball is scored and he was grabbing the rim, then you have both infractions. (NFHS case 9.11.1 Sit B) Someone can totally correct me if it is different in NCAAM. He did reach and touch the ball and it nearly went in the basket.

Per the 2016-17 Mens Basketball Rulebook, pg 96

Right, so not different, T in both.

(I did always wonder why "substitute" was needed in that article)

It is only a T if the player is hanging on the rim unnecessarily. He is attempting to dunk the ball and the BI called ends the play. I would not call a T here for any reason if the BI was called. But I can make a case that this is not a BI as the ball did not go back to the original position and contact the ball. You could make a case for that, but I am not sure that was technically right.

I also do not see the C giving a T signal. I think he is signalling something else related to the BI. But he goes away from the screen, so hard to ultimately tell.

Peace

Incorrect....It is a T for grabbing the rim and using it for an advantage....like being able to stay up there and reach for the ball to tip it back in. If the they didn't call BI on the dunk attempt itself (they didn't), you simply can't call BI for touching a ball that has bounced out of the basket and is about 1 foot outside of the cylinder. That ball is generally fair game to touch. However, doing so while hanging on the rim (even if for safety) is a T in both NCAA and NFHS.

What is incorrect? It was BI. If he had grabbed the rim and then tried to put the ball in the hole, I would agree with a T if no violation was called. But the violation clearly took place and I see nothing that suggest that this is a BI and a T in this specific play. There are plays you could call both, but not in this play unless you just want to prove you know the rule and be overly "technical."

I also did not say anything about the rule differences either. I would rule it the same way in both, but not relevant to my position. If there was a rebound and the player grabbed the rim and then tried to but the ball in the basket, then I would agree. That is not really what happened here. A violation was called and basically ended the play. I do not expect you to agree, but that is what I am doing.

Peace

He actually did tap the rebound to put it back in....they didn't blow the whistle until that happened.

Accusing someone of being overly technical as a smokescreen to not not knowing the rules is pretty sad.

Let's try to not make it personal, and simply talk about rules and rulings.

That said ... Jeff sometimes says some things that make me scratch my head ... but I think claiming he doesn't know the rules is exceedingly inaccurate.

I am still confused as to why a T was not called on that play. While they may have called BI, any to some it is considered BI, the actions of the shooter grabbing the rim still have TF written all over it. Just don't understand why a TF was not called and why no one, that I recall, even mentioned it.:confused:

Who would mention it?

The announcers? They don't even know what basket interference is, which is what was incorrectly called here. To them, everything is "goaltending" (i.e., the Northwestern play). They certainly wouldn't know that this is actually a technical foul.

Actually I know the rule quite well, but there is debate over the rules or what is expected. Again, you clearly do not work college basketball on the Men's side. Because every game there is a discussion with partners about how we are going to handle the RA and how we give each other the information if the RA is involved. And there is a lot of conversation about when, how or if we do this. If you did this conversation would probably be more of something you would understand because this was a "debate" I love how you quote rules, but you never were in a single meeting where the rule was discussed. If you had, then you would realize that a lot of us are confused about what they want. The rule has been confusing and even tweaked because of that confusion.

Peace

Think you are correct. I can understand how the NW play was missed. From my couch, about 10 feet from the TV, my first reaction was "Whoa, great block!" L probably wasn't looking up there and C/T certainly could simply have not seen it clearly. Now, the Lou rim grab, was obvious to the world. No one missed it in real time. If ever there is a TF, isn't a rim hang, rim grab to aid, etc. an obvious one that everyone knows, especially 4 (on floor crew including L and table alternate) stud D1 officials who probably have over 100 years of combined experience officiating? Don't fans/announcers/coaches/players all know that too? Obviously not, but it still amazes me that no coach/player/announcer/crew member said/indicated something.

Guess I will just take my amazement with me and after this thread, will never miss that call, lol.

Really? Rather than admit you were wrong, I guess it is easier to attack. If that is your criteria, I guess it is clear you don't even work basketball because if you did you wouldn't screw up so much stuff.

Just because you or your local peers were confused doesn't mean the rule is confusing.

Actually again, you do not work a single college game or get the videos from the NCAA. Enough said. ;)

Because you are talking about a statement not the video that was put out, which if you were a college official for some time you would realize those Art Hyman comments are often curious to what the video suggests. But then again you are the person that said that 10-1-4 or 10-6-12 rules were always the case in the rulebook. So I guess I will consider the source.

Peace

I may not currently, but I have in the past. And if you think you're something special for working a few low level NCAA games, keep dreaming.

You seem to have trouble with words and depend on pictures to comprehend things and then still often mess them up, as evidenced here. The words are 100% clear and there is no other way to read them. If you think the videos suggested something else, perhaps it is you. But to say the words or the rule is fuzzy is nothing more than trying to avoid admitting you were wrong (again).


As for 10-1-4...those have been fouls for 100 years. Just because you can't understand it doesn't change the facts. They just changed the words so that some people who had trouble understanding the rules could get it.

I do not find anything special with it, just know the conversations are different. I also work with guys that work D1 in our leagues and there is conversation about how they do things and what they are told.

No I just take in everything that is stated into consideration. There are often contradictions in what they show in video and what they say at the meeting or what they put in writing. I go to a staff meeting every year and have the a debate over what is wanted and need clarifications from things either written, like what we do with post play (whether the post player is behind or on the side with a forearm). The rule was clear, but it was not practical to how the game was played. And we would have the rules presentation bring more questions

Yes, two hands on the ball handler was a dribbler was a foul. Constant touching on the dribbler was a foul as well. These were so much rules, that no one called them that way or even taught to call fouls that way. Granted, many of these things were not tactics either, but since they were not fouls in the rulebook, they were never called. But again, you will tell us that it was and if that is your story, stick to that. You are literally the only person I know that feels that way!!!

Peace

You're forgetful too. A lot of people have agreed with me on the fact that these were always fouls but just not being called correctly. Again, that was the whole point of the rule change...not to make something a foul that wasn't but to get it through some people's thick heads that they were not enforcing existing rules correctly. The NFHS and NCAA even said as much. Every time you bring that up, you just prove the NCAA/NFHS right in that some people (you) were just not understanding it. And being wrong with others doesn't make you right.

I do not care what other people agree with you about. I was not asking for your approval or their approval to have an opinion. If they agree with you, nice. But I can tell you that there were not people calling it that way. I have been doing this for over 20 years and been to many camps outside of my state and there was no such suggestion by any official that is outside of my area or works D1 basketball. Heck there were all kinds of complaining about how things were called if you simply called a hand-checking foul years ago. I actually went to John Adam's camp before he became the NCAA Supervisor and just simple calls that now fall under 10-1-4 were often seen very differently. I even worked a game at John Adam's camp where the clinician told us to call more hand-checking calls in a half me and my partners were working called more and John who was not watching our game started watching. He was surprised there were more fouls and wondered why until his clinician told him, "I told them to call more of those fouls." John said, "Oh, OK" and we did not have it mentioned. But it was something we had to be asked to do because of the specifics of the game, not because it was a specific rule.

Heck the way post play was officiated was also something not called the way it is now. If you did, you were calling "game interrupters." But again back to what I said, you are not seeing the videos. Every NCAA video spends the first couple of minutes talking about 10-1-4. That was not the case before not matter what you say.

I am also not trying to be "right." I do not care about who is right or wrong. I do not have these conversations to prove anything, but other than to have a discussion. Even the way I create the videos are to spark discussions that are often not about the rules, but about the philosophy of how you call the game. Often what is expected and what is called are not the same thing. But that is why "rulebook officials" like you are not people I like working with. You want to prove you know the rule, but do not know how the rules are to be applied or expected to be applied. And the last time I checked, I did not see you on any of these games working either.

Peace

So, you called fouls that were not fouls???? I'm confused. I thought you said those were not fouls before????

That is OK, I don't like working with people that are clueless idiots who can only bullshit their way through a game.

When you have done as many state championship finals as I have done, give me call and then maybe you'll be ready to comprehend the rules that you have so much trouble with.

OK. Next!!!

Peace

I have done 5 in my career in 3 different sports. Thanks.

Peace

Here's the deal. This little feud is going to end right now or both of you will be given a little time to cool off.

Just ignore each other, please.

Thread closed.